About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
is that the obama administration has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. and governor romney may well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute could but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of salience in something like a presidential debate. so other than health care, i do not see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it isind of remarkable. the republicans who, during the 1990's for a while, we're seeing some sort of political profit attacking affirmative action given the polls don't do it anymore. and the democrats, john kerry coming nearly 1990's, joe lieberman in the early 1990's and others, said maybe this time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that has all gone. i have spoken with republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was that we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it is just not w
in this country. those are issues the obama administration has focused on for fixing failing schools. he has a laser focus on effectiveness in teaching and how to improve our teacher work force. the romney campaign has expressed interest in improving the schools through a different avenue by promoting more choice for parents. neither side is recognizing that those reforms if ever put in place will be far less successful if children are not giving the solid foundation in the first place. children growing up in the impoverished conditions have little access to the education that they need in those younger years. those reforms would not go anywhere. we need to get serious about the problem we are talking about today. schools need to teach those basic skills, but we really need our children in environments where there are focused on innovative thinking, flexible thinking, deeper knowledge in multiples subject matters. smarter, a far better use of our public funds of thinking of them as education dollars? are investments a country in, wouldn't it be smarter to use those investments to be from loa
, the administration sent susan rice out to tell everybody it was because of some youtube clip. so today's speech was not a great moment in the obama presidency. that's for sure. >> colin, what do you take -- think about this claim that al qaeda is weakened? certainly in some regards it is, at least when it comes to afghanistan. but in africa, extremist groups linked to al qaeda in some way, shape or form, they are certainly on the rise. so what do you think about the truth of the statement overall? >> it's absolutely true. it's objectively true. besides the fact that osama bin laden is now dead, more senior leaders in al qaeda have been removed from the battlefield in the last three-and-a-half years than in any comparable period since 9/11. and it's not just in afghanistan and pakistan. it's also in yemen, it's in somalia. and it's -- and it's elsewhere. so i think you're right that there are still affiliates of al qaeda that are active, and we still relentlessly pursue them. but there is no question that al qaeda is a weaker organization today than when president obama took office, and i think
and democratic administrations. i think it's unfair to level such a criticism in president obama. he has been a very strong leader on protecting this country as president bush was. and i think both presidents, since 9/11, have put security of the american people, our homeland security as job number one as they should. and they have both been strong in the area. it's unfair to assert that president obama has let down the guard. libya was a triple tragic event. he died two weeks ago today along with the three of the colleagues. the responsibility for guarding our embassy overseas is not the -- we don't have american military protecting our embassy. it's the host country that provides the perimeter security around the diplomatic security. we provide the security for the foreign embassies in new york city. who let us down in cairo? it was the egyptian government. that's why the crowd went over the wall and put down the american flag and putted it up. it was the libyan security forces who let us down in benghazi when ambassador stevens was killed. i don't think it's appropriate to somehow blame th
: mr. burns, why don't you begin by explaining how you think he administration handled libya? guest: let me just say, i've worked for democratic and republican administrations, and i think i.t. is unfair to level such a criticism of the -- president obama. he has been a strong leader in protecting this country, as president bush was, and both presidents since 9/11 have put the security of the american people and homeland security as job number one, as they should. they are both strong in that area, and it is unfair to suggest that president obama has let down our guard. the events in libya were tragic. the responsibility for guarding our embassies and consulates overseas -- we don't have american military protecting our embassies. it is the host country that provides perimeter security rapping out diplomatic establishments. we provide security for foreign embassies in washington, d.c. and consulates in new york city to it could lead us down? in cairo, it was the egyptian government that did not have enough security around pmc, and that is why the crowds went over the walls and a tri
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)